nope...about 200 heinz employees turned up and happened to sit with the 4,500 Quins fans

The strange thing is that there appears to be no suggestion at the moment that the 6 Crusaders players didn't have valid visas for the 2009 season. I find that odd given the strictness of the new visa regulations, particularly the area of the rules concerning player quality. As you mentioned earlier, only one of the 6 players mentioned would have qualified for a sports visa on those grounds.

The other oddity is that a number of players in the Championships failed to get visas for this season [idespite[/i having existing contracts. Would they not have been covered under the 2005 provision? Or if they had contracts renewed after that date, does it mean they were here illegally last season and were caught at the application stage this season? Or maybe the UKBA changed the rules again without telling anyone?

It's a complex situation and I have a feeling that culpability is probably spread between a number of individuals and organisations.

It's simple. And a lie. Nobody, not the players or Celtic, ever suggested that the six players were amateurs. They were clearly professional players in a professional league.

The UKBA investigation says that they did not mention their intention to play professional sport in their applications, and were therefore here illegally. Not that they pretended to be amateurs.

Nobody has suggested (other than you), or cited evidence to suggest, that either Crusaders RLFC or the RFL pretended these players were amateurs. Nor that players at the other 13 clubs who signed while on working holidaymaker visas were amateurs. That's a red herring introduced solely by you.

And while the UKBA has stated that investigations continue to discover whether the club did anything untoward, they have not suggested that the club attempted to hide the fact that these employees of the club were playing professional sport (after all, they put them on the field, in front of national TV cameras, week after week).

You used to have sensible points to make. But on this your personal paranoia over all things RFL is leading you close to making potentially actionable accusations.

This weeks RLE states that they were on Visas that stated they were amateurs.

When they had the benefit of these Visas they were hardly on TV week after week. They were in a division that has tiny national significance especially in Wales.

They were on S4C - pretty much every home game!

Interesting. Did they provide any source, evidence or reasoning for that statement?

The reason I ask is that, according to the RFL, 14 clubs, including Crusaders, have registered players at some time on working holidaymaker visas and I find the idea of amateur players in a professional, or semi professional, sport strange.

For instance. (and I could be wrong on this, but I seem to recall someone at the New River Stadium saying that) at least in their first year or two in NL2 Skolars players were on a £50 win bonus, and that was it. That's not a huge amount of money, especially given how few wins Skolars got at the time, but it is enough to make them professionals not amateurs in most people's eyes (including BARLA's at a guess).

Or are we working on some different definition of amateur?



As t-r-i-n-i-t-y points out, a number of their games were broadcast on S4C, as well as Sky's NL coverage.

You're confusing the issues - when the other 13 clubs registered them as players they were entitled to play for money as it was pre-2005 before the rules changed. Therefore they were not, and did not need to be, amateurs.

Post 2005 anyone on a holiday visa was unable to play for money - which is when the CC players were registered. The evidence seems to be that they claimed to be working full-time for Mr Samuel's company while playing RL as a non-paid hobby as amateurs.

I can't help but wonder where HMRC/DWP fit in to all of this. Presumable all of these players had to be registered for income tax/NI and would have had to provide details of their immigration status.

One would have thought Revenue would have twigged something was up if provided with an "amateur" visa for someone who is about to be paid for playing.

I'm getting more confused, tbh: why would a working holidaymaker visa allow them to work at one job, but not another?

You'll have to ask the UKBA that one ! But they changed the rules at the end of 2005 so that nobody on a holiday visa could play professional or semi-professional sport for money. Why is anyone's guess, but the fact remains that they did.

Even now, under the revised rules which came into force this year, sportsmen and women have to apply for a specific type of visa and meet defined criteria as prescribed by the governing body of the particular sport.

FFS......
Why don't the RFL just dock them all the points they gained whilst these players were "illegal".........it won't change the fact they got a licence, but it might just shut the moaning flat earth anti-expansionist t055ers up


Challenge Cup Final Weekend and all we get is 6,000,000 assumtive posts about who's to blame...I dispair at the attitude of some so called Rugby League Fans.

I think you're assuming the government is an efficient joined-up organisation, (like the RFL). I have employed several people on work permits. Getting them a visa (and the speed of getting it issued) seems to be highly variable in terms of how long it takes, down to the individual civil servant who deals with the case. And we had one guy who had been working for us for 5 or 6 years, flew to the US on business, then was not allowed back into the UK because they reckoned he wasn't allowed to work here - in spite of having been paying top rate income tax for years. He had to go home and re-apply. You can perfectly well get a NI number without any right to take a full-time job.

Working holiday visas were completely stopped last year (there is now the youth mobility visa which has replaced it) but there were restrictions on the type and length of any employment you took up - typically you were supposed to be taking temporary, unskilled jobs - bar work, office temping, factory work etc. People here on student visas also have fairly limited rights to supplement their income with paid work. It is entirely plausible that you would be allowed to work in Leighton Samuels DIY factory, but not be allowed to play full-time for his RL team, for example.

I personally know a SL player who was here on a working holiday visa in 2005. (And to be fair, he did seem to treat it more as a holiday than work). The home office changed the rules partly as a result of pressure from the professional players association - protecting British jobs and all that.

Except of course that they would not have got promotion to NL1 without those points, and would therefore have been ineligible to apply for a licence in the first place.........

Sporstmen and Women, and their clubs, abused the system pre 2005. So they (UKBA) stopped the WHV loophole for professional sportsmen. You are now only able to work in part-time employment with limited hours - such as bar work. You can obtain a working holiday visa for upto 2 years. After that you cannot work at all. This is why some Celtic players applied for a student visa - which is also illegal - instead. You have not been able to play as a Professional sportsman on a working holiday visa since 2005 (without special dispensation from the UKBA and the RFL). It's neither difficult nor confusing. Pretty straight forward really.

Although I will admit that I have no idea how some CC players now have obtained skilled migrant visas. Maybe these players were actually considered as good enough to do so. Obviously, as they have now been found to have been playing here illegally previous to this season, those new visas are now void anyway.





Because they are different government departments. All they'll see is 6 Australian citizens working as part-time Fork Lift Truck drivers in Wales for....I don't know....Dekor PLC? There'll be no mention of Rugby League. It is possible that one of these noticed a discrepancy in how much they were being paid and reported it to the UKBA, and that's where the UKBA's intelligence came from.

It's being discussed because it's a very serious issue.

is it?
really.......
then why are 99% of the posts from bitter fans of clubs who didn't get a licence?
as I said.....dock them every point.......it won't make any difference.....they are in sl and there they will stay until samuels gets bored.

Yes, see the RL media for details. It also has serious implications for the sport. That will be the sport we all follow and claim to love.


Not everything comes down to this. It may be difficult for you to comprehend this, but it just doesn't.



What happens, happens. Just because we are not in a position to do anything about it, doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Sorry Gutterfax, don't include me in the bitters but if they were to be docked each point, they'd be languishing of the foot of the Championship One in front of 200 speccies.

They aren't though.

For once you can't just brush this off as a flatcapper issue. Too many other people have spoken up about it, fans of many different clubs and from many different stances.

If this had been any other club they would have got slated and probably had a lot less people sticking up for them. Funnily enough big issues are big issues, when clubs got docked points for salary cap breaches there was nobody saying lay off those clubs. When Thackery was proven to be an illegal player there was nobody saying lay off Hull.

The reason it is still being discussed is because it appears that it is just going to be brushed under the carpet again. The RFL are happy enough making out that loads of clubs have done it and that will be the last they have to say on the matter.

How can they brush it under the carpet when then UKBA haven't completed their investigation yet? Does the RFL supercede a government agency now?

As for it being flatcappers and flatearth theorists, can the expansionistas not see that the flatcappers (or perceived flatcappers) and suchlike are not the ones who are doing untold damage to RL. It is the hamfisted attempts of the RFL and the possible clandestine work of expansion clubs who aren't ready for the top level who inflict the untold damage on the image game we care so much about.

For someone who claims to be very much in favour of our club and the way it is now operated you seem to have a complete lack of understanding and empathy towards it's fans. Hypocritical don't you think?

Ah yes of course the 'investigation'. I'll give you a clue, you're going to be waiting a long time.

as long as whinging Widnes don't get a SL spot I will be happy.

Bank on certainties for a SL spot

Toulouse!!!